>>>>> Wichert Akkerman writes: WA> `liberal license' WA> I. Can be used by everyone WA> II. May not be used to advertise non-free products
I, personally, would like to see the `liberal' logo be at least as free as verbatim copying without restriction. To me, it would suck if Debian's only real logos prohibited use by non-free people. That would be tantamount to the GNU Project making GNU trademarked, and then refusing to allow anybody to use GNU(tm) to describe their product unless it fit with certain guidelines. Not even RMS has that little faith in people. It's been good enough to allow the word to be used anywhere *legally*, but then just to apply *social* pressure to get people to stop using the word for inappropriate purposes. Why not simply: Copyright (C) 1999 Software in the Public Interest Verbatim copying and distribution of this logo is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved. If people want to do something other than verbatim copying, then that can be handled on a case-by-case basis by SPI. WA> `official license' WA> I. may only be used if: a) the product it is used for is made WA> using a documented procudere we make (for example official WA> CD-creation) b) if we give approval for its use WA> II. may be used if an official part of debian (decided using the WA> rules in I) is part of the complete product, if it is made clear WA> that only this part is officialy approved WA> III. We reserve the right to revoke a license for a product, if WA> (some conditions here) Sure, whatever. As long as the liberal version of the logo is at least as free as verbatim copying, I don't have a serious problem with any of these conditions for the official logo. Having said that, my personal preference would be to simply say that the `official license' cannot be used to advertise any non-free software, and furthermore cannot be distributed with a CD unless that CD is made via documented procedures. Perhaps a special exception would be made to allow the inclusion of an ``official Debian non-free CD'' with such a CD set, but I'd prefer that non-free never be branded as ``official''. That's my opinion in a nutshell: liberal: anybody can use this verbatim for whatever they want official: cannot be used to promote any non-DFSG-free software, nor for a CD set that wasn't burned via official procedures, otherwise you can use this verbatim for whatever you want So, the idea would be that somebody who made non-free software that worked with Debian would only be able to use the `liberal' logo. If you make free software, and you want to promote Debian, you can use the `official' logo however you want, so long as it isn't in conjunction with a non-official CD. I feel morally uncomfortable about adding more legal restrictions than that, unless there is a really, really good reason. I think any other fine-grained restrictions can be accomplished via social pressure a la RMS (and I paraphrase): ``Stop doing that. If you don't stop, I'll send you another e-mail like this one once a day for the rest of your life, write an essay about you, publish it widely, and generally help many people to understand why you're a selfish bastard with no concern for the GNU Project's real goals.'' Most people, if they're confronted with that, honour RMS's wishes quickly. The people who don't are usually the ones who wouldn't misuse the word GNU in the first place. I think that with over 400 developers, social pressure could be even more effective, requiring legal restrictions only for the most blatant abusers. If you're paranoid, add a clause saying that we reserve the right to change the official logo's license retroactively in order to prevent it from being used to undermine the Debian project. -- Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> //\ I'm a FIG (http://www.fig.org/) Committed to freedom and diversity \// I use GNU (http://www.gnu.org/)